REKHA DEVI ALIAS REKHA KUMARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Tr.Pet.Crl/2/2023 · 2025-01-21
Rajesh Kumar
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2783 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2783 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.02 of 2023 ---- Rekha Devi @ Rekha Kumari, aged about 31 years wife of Sapan Kumar Mahato and daughter of Maheshwar Mahato, at present residing at Village – Chittodih, P.O.- Toladih, P.S.-Bundu, District-Ranchi
…. …. Petitioner(s) Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sapan Kumar Mahato, son of Flar Mahato
3. Flar Mahato son of Late Jugal Mahato
4. Sakuntala Devi wife of Flar Mahato, Nos.2 to 4 resident of Raghunathpur, P.O. + P.S. – Ichagarh, District-Seraikella- Kharsawan
5. Chameli Devi, wife of Sunil Kumar Mahato
6. Sunil Kumar Mahato, son of Maheshwar Mahato, Nos.5 and 6 resident of village-Kotagarha, P.O. + P.S. – Rahe (Sonahatu), District – Ranchi.
7. Bansidhar Mahato, son of Santosh Mahato, resident of village-Mulwadih (Madhupur), P.O. + P.S. – Jhalida, District-Purulia (W.B.)
…. …. Opposite Party(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s)
: For the State
: A.P.P. ---- 08/Dated: 21st January, 2025
1. The last order dated 11.12.2024 reads as under:-
“Notice upon the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 and 7 have been validly served and the vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.6, however nobody is present on behalf of opposite party No.6.
2. It has been informed on behalf of Mr. N.K. Sahani that the NOC has been taken by the petitioner and in view of that his office is not able to argue the matter. The matter is still pending and NOC has been taken by the petitioner and she is required to make out an alternative arrangement either by way of engaging another Advocate or appear in person, however no arrangement has been made.
3. With a view to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, let this matter appear after x-mas vacation of 2024.”
2. Till date, the petitioner/wife has chosen not to appoint an advocate. Thus, it appears that she is not interested in pursuing the present case.
3. In view of the above, the present transfer petition is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded